Dear Santa Clara University: An Open Letter to Follow WSJ

I am writing publicly because all private channels have failed. This is a follow-up to my op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.

To the Administration of Santa Clara University and Faculty of the Counseling Psychology Department: I write to you in light of recent coverage.

Over the past year, I have raised concerns about academic requirements in your program that, in plain reading, violate APA ethics codes, specifically, the compulsory submission of a “comprehensive sexual autobiography” as a graduation requirement in CPSY 211 Human Sexuality. This assignment asked us to disclose early sexual memories, masturbation, key moments in our sexual history, current sexual practices, and future sexual goals. Students were instructed to upload these personal details to Canvas, which has scant security assurances, and without the option of a reasonable alternative. A perfunctory disclaimer that we are not required to submit anything that causes “extreme discomfort” both acknowledges that we may be very uncomfortable and is meaningless given students are required to write eight to ten pages for a grade.

When I requested an accommodation for this assignment based on ethical, religious, and trauma-informed grounds, I was denied, so I dropped the course.

In a subsequent quarter in the same course, students were exposed to a video tour of a BDSM dungeon during class. A female influencer was shown gagged, flogged, and wrapped in plastic. Afterward, the professor asked the class if we wanted to “try it” ourselves. I walked out, visibly upset. That material was presented with no opt-out or academic relevance to Marriage and Family Therapy training. Asking students if they’d like to participate in a sexual fetish is unprofessional and pedagogically inexcusable.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a deeper pattern of boundary violations, coercive pedagogy, and ideological homogeneity. This program, in my view, violates multiple ethical principles outlined by the American Psychological Association. While the Counseling Psychology MA program is not accredited by APA, you, as psychologists, are held to these standards. Violations include:

• Ethics Code 7.04 Student Disclosure of Personal Information: Psychologists do not require students or supervisees to disclose personal information in course- or program-related activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual history, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment, and relationships with parents, peers, and spouses or significant others except if (1) the program or training facility has clearly identified this requirement in its admissions and program materials* or (2) the information is necessary to evaluate or obtain assistance for students whose personal problems could reasonably be judged to be preventing them from performing their training- or professionally related activities in a competent manner or posing a threat to the students or others.**

  • *Nowhere in advertisement materials was it disclosed that we are required to submit a comprehensive sexual autobiography

  • **This sexual autobiography requirement is for all students. (2) Does not apply.

• Ethics Code 3.01 Unfair Discrimination: In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion*, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.

  • *I walked out of class after the BDSM dungeon tour. I requested the same accommodation that Muslim students were offered according to the Chairwoman. I was denied.

• Ethics Code 3.02 Sexual Harrassment: Psychologists do not engage in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual solicitation, physical advances, or verbal or nonverbal conduct that is sexual in nature, that occurs in connection with the psychologist's activities or roles as a psychologist, and that either (1) is unwelcome, is offensive, or creates a hostile workplace or educational environment,* and the psychologist knows or is told this or (2) is sufficiently severe or intense to be abusive to a reasonable person in the context. Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts.

  • *CPSY 211 has included: The psychologist professor’s disclosure of interest in kink and wearing a foreskin elongation device; playing racial-slur laden “WAP” and “I Beat My Meat;” playing a how-to bondage video of a man in a gimp suit; playing a video of a sex dungeon tour featuring violence against a woman; a trans woman talking about “pussies” and “almost cumming;” sadomasochistic erotica; and a pornographic illustration guide that is written as revenge for the author’s Christian upbringing. These are multiple persistent and pervasive acts that are unwelcome, offensive, and create a hostile educational requirement.

• Standard 3.04 Avoiding Harm: Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

  • In Dr. Wei’s syllabus, he states: “Finally, if a specific topic is especially bothersome, traumatic, or distressing for you, please discuss this with me to explore resources that can be of support. Please keep in mind, however, that you are still responsible for the materials presented in all lectures. A personal preference to not engage in certain topics does not warrant your absences and you are encouraged to examine your potential bias or anxiety.”

• Principle B Fidelity and Responsibility: Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work. They are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues' scientific and professional conduct*. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage.

  • *I have made these ethical violations known to several psychologists in leadership including the Chairs, the Dean, a staff psychologist at CAPS and the Director of CAPS. Nothing has been remedied.

• Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity: Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.

Your program is, in my plain reading, in violation of these six crucial codes and principles.

I raised these concerns through proper internal channels: Professor, Chair, Dean, Provost, President. Title IX. Ombudsman. Campus Ministry. I have received bureaucratic indifference at best and quiet retaliation at worst. Delay, deflection, denial of on-campus mental health services, and new opportunely timed “Key Professional Standards,” related to conflict resolution issued after I filed a second complaint with the Title IX office and a FERPA request, which I am legally entitled to do.

I was left to choose between coerced compliance and public whistleblowing. I chose the latter.

Therefore, I am calling on Santa Clara University to:

1. Immediately discontinue the mandatory sexual autobiography assignment.

2. Provide opt-out alternatives for coursework involving explicit sexual content when it violates personal religious beliefs, sincerely held values, or will foreseeably retraumatize students who have experienced abuse.

3. Adopt a formal policy upholding APA Ethics Code 7.04 for all courses.

4. Protect students from academic retaliation for raising good-faith objections.

5. Clarify faculty obligations when professional ethics and academic freedom conflict.

6. Allow me to finish my graduate program unobstructed without retaliation.

These actions will safeguard informed consent for students, adherence to professional ethics, and the common-sense boundaries that should guide all clinical education.

I am not alone in this experience. The University's own Counseling and Psychological Services office staff psychologist plainly stated that this program is a “disaster” due to its ethical violations and that many students seek psychological care because of it. He stated that every clinician in the office is aware of it.

I may be the first to speak publicly. I hope I will not be the last.

Sincerely,

Naomi Epps Best